"Reacting To Recent Events..." - Bleeding Cool:
Kind of conflicted feelings about this. I guess DC’s heart is in the right place, and I understand that with recent events, people are more sensitive than they may usually be to a lot of violence. Also, DC’s core books with their most iconic characters should appeal to a wide audience, so I get the decision making going on here. BUT…
Well, first of all, it’s been shown time and again that people who go on these violent rampages have mental/emotional problems that aren’t going to go away just because they don’t have access to violent fiction. Also, I think the news glorifying these killers does more to promote copycats than any comic book, game or TV show.
As far as the books go though, I think violence can be a powerful storytelling tool in the right hands. Sure, it’s sometimes used purely for shock value, but it can also be used to good effect to tell you something about the characters, the world/culture they live in, make a statement/commentary on real life issues, or just to make you jump, etc. If you’re hoping to sell he book on notoriety rather than quality, then yeah, you’re a hack. But a writer can use that violence to good effect, to make a story better. Look at Luther Strode by Justin Jordan, it’s probably the single most violent and gory comic I’ve read in years, (I do not read Crossed, I’ve heard that’s more gory, the covers certainly are) people are ripped in half, blood and intestines flying everywhere, heads exploding, all on panel. But there is a REASON for the over the top violence there, and the story would be lesser without it. (And you know, sometimes gratuitous violence can be fun, a release of sorts, so hey whatever, not all of it needs a point, I just think it’s much better if it does.)
I don’t think this potential tool should be removed from every book on the shelves (or movies in theatres, or show on TV etc.) just because SOME people use it badly. If someone is offended by the content, they don’t have to read/watch it.
DC by all means they should get to decide what sort of tone their books have, but at the same time I think toning down the violence would be a disservice to certain characters. Deathstroke, Midnighter, the Red Lanterns as a whole, hell, Batman, can all benefit from violence in their stories. I think some of what was done in the Bat-books was shock value, but when dealing with a psychopath like Joker, I damn well expect something disturbing and violent to occur. Batman and Robin #15 was pure undiluted nightmare fuel from cover to cover, but I loved the issue for it. No, it wasn’t appropriate for young kids, or people who just don’t like that sort of content, but DC has an internal rating system in place, they should use it. (and use it properly. Some of their ratings currently are rather baffling) Apply a T+ or even an M rating to some books with lots of violence, maybe make the ratings a bit more obvious on the cover than they are currently, but aside from books like the Justice League, let the story/character dictate how much violence is appropriate, maybe nix anything that’s clearly there only for shock value, then respond with a rating that reflects the content of the final book.
This ended up being a lot longer than i intended.
Imported from Tumblr:
http://rayegunn.tumblr.com/post/38214741402
